Mediaboss Marketing

For progressives, it is the stuff that dreams are made of: Donald Trump could soon trade his orange tan for a prison-issued orange jumpsuit.

But first, Americans have to render their verdict on November 3 before a district attorney or two ask another kind of jury to render another kind of verdict on the defendant, not president, Trump.

Fuelling hopes that dream will, one day, come true, are durable public opinion polls that show Democrat Joe Biden remains comfortably ahead nationally and in a slew of mercurial swing states.

The promise of evicting Trump and his equally loathsome accomplices from the White House is deliciously close. And, yet, the disquiet among progressives is palpable. The trauma of 2016 lingers. Trumps political resilience is as baffling as it is infuriating.

That Trump may duplicate his astonishing victory of approaching four years ago however slim the possibility is testament to how many millions of Americans undeniably share their presidents stupidity, profanity, obscenity, and fidelity to lunatic conspiracy theories.

Anticipation meets apprehension.

Still, progressives peering expectantly over the November horizon confident that Trump will be thrashed via mail-in ballots are also convinced that his decisive defeat will mark the first of a cascading series of events that will ultimately lead to a courtroom dock.

Dream on, indeed.

Thrilled by the prospect that Trump will eventually meet his oh-so-enticing legal comeuppance, many paid-to-talk-on-TV progressives feigned, I suspect, sympathy for the ailing president when he contracted COVID-19 recently. (I did not share their soppy sensibilities.)

In a nauseating display of sentimentality, Rachel Maddow et al wished Trump well with a big caveat. We want you to recover, Mr President, they said, so we can watch you be perp-walked into court; and, if all goes to plan, escorted by armed guards into a minimum-security jail.

The wonderful precedents abound. At least eight of Trumps close associates some more closely associated with him than others have either been indicted or jailed, including his ex-campaign manager, Paul Manafort, and his longtime consigliere-turned-progressive media darling, Michael Cohen.

Most of the charges Trumps pinstriped suit-wearing associates faced stem from former FBI Director Robert Muellers byzantine probe into whether all the presidents men colluded with the Russians to subvert the 2016 election.

The paid-to-talk-on-TV progressives insisted that the sober, silver-haired Mueller was tantamount to the white knight of justice riding to the rescue of an on-life-support rule of law. Turns out, the brave white knight was a more old, timid turtle who baulked at holding Trump to any meaningful measure of account.

The prized catch slithered off the hook and evaded obstruction of justice charges. All the tortuous semantics about what Trump did with the Russians and when he did it leading up to the presidential election, cannot undo the fact that he was not indicted and, as a result, could claim vindication.

So, so long Robert Mueller. Hello, Cyrus Vance, the progressives new, shining saviour. At the moment, the Manhattan district attorney is deep into a criminal investigation of the Trump Organizations cobweb-like financial dealings that could lead, court filings suggest, to a slew of indictments of various counts of fraud against Trump and his co-conspirators familial or otherwise.

Beyond his potential legal travails with Vance, Trump is facing a tsunami of civil lawsuits from several states attorneys general and his niece, Mary, for fraud, as well as for defamation by women who have accused the president of rape and sexual harassment.

If he loses, Trump will, legal pundits say, forfeit the deference the courts have traditionally afforded sitting presidents.

Sorry to disappoint progressives, but that deference will certainly extend to Trump when he leaves the White House voluntarily or involuntarily just as it has to every other former president.

Surely, the same impulse that prompted Gerald Ford to pardon Richard Nixon, a president who also happened to be the principal architect of a long, administration-wide criminal conspiracy hatched in the Oval Office, will prevail with Trump.

A central aspect of the myth of American exceptionalism is that the head of state is, de facto, the embodiment of the US constitution. As such, to charge and jail a president would mean, in effect, desecrating the constitution, rather than validating it. In the American experience, potent symbolism has always trumped potent facts.

Breaking news: There is not going to be a legal reckoning since Trump is unlikely to be indicted, let alone set foot inside a cell.

Here is the historical record to prove that inviolable point: number of US presidents 45; number of US presidents charged, convicted and jailed 0. This, despite ample and persuasive evidence that scores of occupants of the sacrosanct office of the presidency have skirted to put it diplomatically if not knowingly broken, both domestic and international law.

He probably does not know it, but Trump will not be required to pardon himself: historical precedent will do it for him.

Any starry-eyed progressive who has faith that a justice system that could not indict one of the smug galleries of crisp, white-collar Wall Street bankers responsible for orchestrating the Ponzi-scheme-like subprime mortgage racket that triggered a near depression will have a miraculous epiphany and finally charge a former president for alleged financial crimes may also believe that Trump ought to have won the Nobel Peace Prize.

As for the civil lawsuits, I anticipate that most will inevitably albeit reluctantly be settled out of court after more than a few hefty cheques are written to make all the tricky business go away.

One well-meaning but hallucinating congressman has even suggested a Presidential Crimes Commission that would empower independent prosecutors to examine those who enabled a corrupt president.

I doubt Mr Bipartisanship, Joe Biden, is keen on the idea.

Given the myriad of indignities that Trump has inflicted on sentient Americans, I share their belief that it would be right and just to watch this abominable excuse of a commander-in-chief suffer the indignity of being the first US president to be charged and subsequently imprisoned.

This president deserves to be reduced to inmate Trump. Sadly, it is not going to happen.

The views expressed in this article are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeeras editorial stance.

Read more:
Dream on progressives, Trump is not going to jail - Al Jazeera English

Progressive groups are blasting Democratic presidential nominee Joe BidenJoe BidenObama slams Trump in Miami: 'Florida Man wouldn't even do this stuff' Trump makes his case in North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin Brad Pitt narrates Biden ad airing during World Series MOREs plan to form a commission to study judiciary reforms and whether justices should be added to the Supreme Court.

As Senate Republicans prepare to confirm President TrumpDonald John TrumpObama slams Trump in Miami: 'Florida Man wouldn't even do this stuff' Trump makes his case in North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin Pence's chief of staff tests positive for COVID-19 MOREs third Supreme Court justice, progressives are calling on Democratic leaders to add justices to the Supreme Court if they win the White House and Senate.

For weeks, Biden has steadfastly refused to answer whether he supports court packing. Rather, the Democratic nominee said in an interview with 60 Minutes released Thursday that hed create a bipartisan panel to study it if hes elected.

Progressives at leading left-wing groups panned the idea.

We dont need to be promised a nice report about reform delivered to the White House, we need Vice President Biden to assure Americans that he will take bold action to ensure our courts dont remain dominated by a right-wing fringe installed by Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellTrump expressed doubt to donors GOP can hold Senate: report Senators battle over Supreme Court nominee in rare Saturday session Sunday shows preview: Trump, Biden gear up for final sprint to Election Day MORE to attack abortion rights, destroy health care reform, and dismantle our democracy, said Yvette Simpson, the CEO of the progressive group Democracy for America.

Adam Green, the co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, said theres no way Republicans on the proposed panel will join progressives in the effort to restore balance to the courts.

"Joe Biden's nonpartisan court commission is a gambit, Green said. He basically says that if you put conservative legal thinkers in a room with progressive ones, they will agree that Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans have politicized the courts in order to take away health care, worker rights, and voting rights and that America needs to unpack the courts and restore balance."

Demand Justice called the plan a "punt."

"We certainly do not need a commission to tell us that Republicans are on the verge of stealing their second Supreme Court seat in four years and that the Roberts Court routinely sides with voter suppression schemes that advantage the Republican party," said executive director Brian Fallon.

This proposed commission runs the risk of stalling momentum for serious reform. The window when Democrats may have the power to implement Court reform may be short, and the timeline for a commission would only constrict the window further. Chief Justice Roberts has proven adept at keeping the Courts public profile low whenever scrutiny mounts, and then resuming the Courts rightward march when attention recedes. A commission that would allow opponents of structural reform to run out the clock is not a solution; its a punt.

Still, some of the nations leading progressives have sided with Biden.

Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersTrump makes his case in North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin Trump mocks Joe Biden's drive-in rallies at North Carolina event Sanders hits back at Trump's attack on 'socialized medicine' MORE (I-Vt.) has said he opposes adding justices because subsequent administrations will continue to add until it delegitimizes the court.

Sen. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth WarrenWhat do Google, banks and chicken salad have in common? Final debate: War Admiral vs. Seabiscuit Biden defends his health plan from Trump attacks MORE (D-Mass.) told The Hill that Bidens idea is aiming in the right direction.

"There are lots of ways to get there and I think that the Vice President is aiming in the right direction and that is making sure that we have courts that we can trust. And understand, Warren said. The problems are not just at the Supreme Court level. Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republicans have been ramming through people who are openly racist, sexist, homophobic, opposed to voting, ramming those people through for lifetime appointments. We have a lot to think about in our court system.

For several weeks now, Biden has declined to say whether he supports adding justices to the Supreme Court, saying it would take attention away from GOP efforts to confirm a Supreme Court justice at this late date in the election cycle.

Its a thorny question for Biden, who risks angering the left if he comes out in opposition to court packing, and risks turning off swing voters if he says he supports it.

A New York Times-Siena College survey released this week found that 58 percent of all voters oppose adding justices to the Supreme Court if Judge Amy Coney BarrettAmy Coney BarrettTrump expressed doubt to donors GOP can hold Senate: report Senators battle over Supreme Court nominee in rare Saturday session Sunday shows preview: Trump, Biden gear up for final sprint to Election Day MORE is confirmed, compared to only 31 percent who support it. Fifty-seven percent of Democrats support court packing, but 65 percent of independents oppose it.

In the 60 Minutes interview, Biden said he'd ask a bipartisan commission of scholars, constitutional scholars, Democrats, Republicans, liberal [and] conservative for recommendations on how to reform the courts.

See original here:
Progressives blast Biden plan to form panel on Supreme Court reform | TheHill - The Hill

Voters wait in line to vote at a polling place on October 15, 2020 in Black Mountain, North Carolina. Record numbers came out for in-person, early voting which began today in North Carolina. (Photo by Brian Blanco/Getty Images)

At President Donald Trumps recent (and possibly COVID-19 infectious) in-person rally at the White House, Black supporters of Trump attempted to recruit significant numbers of African Americans for the audience.It is just one of other awkward attempts the Trump campaign has made to improve its racial optics.

Given the presidents history of racist rhetoric and conduct, however, polls do not reveal such tepid efforts are likely to convert any significant number of Black voters.

Read More: Why is the Trump campaign courting Black male voters?

Nonetheless, there has been recent anxious debate as to why 14% of Black men reported voting for Trump in 2016 given how narrowly Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, lost to Trump.

Rather than progressive candidates or campaigns wringing their hands about the likely small percentage of Black men who may vote for Trump in 2020, their focus should be upon turning out African American men and women in larger numbers period. As long-term voter turnout numbers reveal, Black men vote in greater numbers when Black women vote in greater numbers.

Treating the Black male voter problem in isolation is to ignore the fact that Black women are most often key organizers and mobilizers of the Black vote, including the votes of their brothers. Of course, there must be specific appeals targeted at the concerns and votes of Black men.

But scholars and activists of intersectionality warn us about the dangers of privileging the leadership and lives of Black men over those of Black women.

Read More: Megan Thee Stallion pens NY Times op-ed championing Black women: Were all we have

It is true that in 2016 there was a slight gender gap where greater numbers of Black men reported voting for and having more favorable views of Trump as compared to Black women (see the tables.) Still, pro-Trump Black women and men were a fraction of the Black vote; other than Black women, Black men were the least likely of all race-gender combinations to support Trump; and in general Black men and women held views that were small differences of degree and not in kind.

Overwhelming majorities of African American women (80.1%) and Black men (71.1%) voted for Clinton for president or had favorable views of Clinton (78.2 % and 71.5%, respectively).

2016 CMPS: In the election of President, did you vote for

2016 CMPS: Had favorable or somewhat favorable views of

And it is unlikely that these slight differences can be explained by differences in ideology, given that roughly equal percentages of Black women and men ideologically identified as liberal (35.8% vs 36.26), moderate (37.1% vs. 39,6%), or conservative (15.3% vs 14.4%).No matter the labels, Black women are somewhat more likely than Black men to support left-leaning policy proposals such as universal healthcare or same-sex marriage.

While there is a presidential turnout gap between all race-gender combinations of women and men, the gap is most pronounced between Black women and men.In 1980, about 56% of Black women turned out to vote as compared to 51% of Black men.In 2016, while overall Black turnout declined to 59% (from 66% in 2012), the gap between Black women and men was 10% or 64% for the former as compared to 54% for the latter.

Read More: 6 states where low Black voter turnout helped Trump win in 2016

Simulations conducted by the Center for American Progress indicate that if Black turnout in 2016 matched that of 2012, African Americans could have been the critical margin of victory for Clinton in the critical Blue wall states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Thus, the reason why in 2020 a bevy of groups from the Black Male Voter Project to Amplify Action are attempting to increase Black turnout especially among Black men.

Of course, there are structural barriers that may very specifically and directly impact Black mens rates of voter participation from felony disenfranchisement to GOP-led purges of inconsistent voters.While Black women for various reasons may be enthused by the Democratic vice-presidential candidacy of Sen. Kamala Harris(D-CA), we do not know if her candidacy will have an Obama effect with Black men even though Harris has made pitches directed at Black men in battleground states like Michigan.

There is an array of issues that speak to Black mens interests including questions of economic and occupational inequalities. But we do not know if Black men will be drawn to the economic and health policy platforms of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.

In the end, a multi-pronged approach that targets both Black women and men may be the most successful and progressive strategy.

Todd Shaw is an associate professor at the University of South Carolina, where he teaches political science and the African American studies.

Share

Read more from the original source:
How progressives should handle the Black male voter problem - TheGrio

Law Forward is a nonprofit law firm that works in close collaboration with allies across the state and beyond. By protecting the interests of ordinary people under the Wisconsin and U.S. Constitutions, Law Forward will defend the principles of good governance, fair play and equality.

Wisconsins ruthless legislative leadership has undertaken a systematic effort to undercut democratic norms and to disenfranchise voters, Jeffrey A. Mandell, founder, president and lead counsel, said.

Rather than legislating to address the needs of Wisconsin families, they have repeatedly used the courts as a tool to entrench their own power. The people deserve to have an advocate in these fights. Law Forward will aggressively combat these efforts and stand in defense of Wisconsins proud, progressive tradition of innovation and pragmatism.

Respected Madison trial attorney Douglas M. Poland will serve as the litigation director, bringing with him a decade of experience in challenging unlawful gerrymandering in federal courts. Law Forward has also hired its first full-time staff counsel, Mel Barnes, who brings an insightful, strategic perspective on how Wisconsins government interacts with the most contentious and important issues.

The organizations diverse Legal Advisory Council will be co-chaired by former Sen. Russ Feingold and former Lt. Gov. Barbara Lawton.

Law Forward is essential infrastructure to protect the rule of law in Wisconsin, Feingold, president of the American Constitution Society and co-chair of Law Forwards Legal Advisory Council, said. We need a savvy, strategic, systemic effort to rebuff the assault on Wisconsin democracy that has been underway for a decade now. I am confident that Law Forward is the effort we so badly need to ensure a functioning democracy and move Wisconsin in a better direction.

Lawton, a co-chair of Law Forwards Legal Advisory Council, said, A many decades-long concerted conservative attack on Wisconsin democracy, funded by dark money, has taken a toll on families and on our communities across the state. Now, we will have Law Forward to stand up for us, give us voice in our courts and ensure government works on behalf of all Wisconsinites. Now, finally, we will have a consistent, coordinated progressive voice for justice in Wisconsin courts.

The organization is already prepared to prosecute litigation necessary to address any attempts to suppress vote participation on or before Election Day, and will continue to focus on strategic impact litigation designed to counteract recent destructive efforts by the conservative legal movement to transform Wisconsins legal landscape.

In particular, Law Forward is well positioned to challenge extreme partisan attempts to gerrymander election districts based on Mandells experience in Wisconsins appellate courts, Polands expertise on redistricting issuesincluding his experience on the legal team that brought the Gill v. Whitford partisan gerrymandering case to the U.S. Supreme Courtand Barness work at Planned Parenthood bringing strategic impact litigation focused on constitutional questions.

Go here to see the original:
Wisconsin Progressives Launch Effort to Reverse Assaults on Democracy through the Courts - Milwaukee Courier Weekly Newspaper

This past July, Bernie Sanders said Joe Biden will be the most progressive president since FDR. Democrats agree that theirs is the party of progressivism, while few people challenge that brand and what it represents.

Yet progressivism is the problem in America today. If progressives achieve their ultimate goals, the United States can no longer exist as a self-governing, constitutional republic. Its long overdue that we call progressivism what it is: the greatest present threat to a free America.

Thats not to say every progressive is a bad person with bad intentions. Many progressives genuinely believe theyre helping others, unaware of how much suffering results from the politicians and programs they support. Their lack of self-knowledge, however, is no excuse for the rest of us to ignore the ideology that fuels divisive and destructive politics.

Progressivism is not new. It began as an intellectual movement 150 years old, stretching back to the 1870s. Early progressives tended to be academics, university professors, and administrators who created the first Ph.D. graduate programs in the late 19th century. Americas first progressive president, Teddy Roosevelt, creaked the door open to the vastly more damaging presidency of Woodrow Wilson, arguably the most archetypal and memorable early progressive who made the transition from academics to politics, winning the White House in 1912.

Many early German-trained American progressives went on to fuel the socialism embedded in Adolf Hitlers Third Reich as well as the communism of Lenins Soviet Union and Mao Zedongs China. In the United States, progressivism took a different path mainly because the Constitution thankfully made it difficult to conduct the kind of social engineering experiments they ran in Germany, Russia, China, and other nations.

Following the devastation of the Civil War, American progressives were convinced America had been ill-founded. They set out to establish a better, more scientific, more progressive foundation for American politics, policies, government, and culture. In place of the self-governing constitutional republic of the Founding Fathers, progressives started planning for a new kind of republic (as the title of Herbert Crolys progressive magazine suggested).

Their dream was a regime of total central planning, free from constitutional constraints, where unelected government bureaucrats and other experts divide subjects (not citizens) into tribes and decide which ones are allowed to do what, as well as how, when, where, and why.

For progressives, the solution to any problem is a government plan. Unlike the Founders Constitution, the purpose of progressive government is to subsidize, regulate, license, supervise, and otherwise plan every aspect of our lives. Nothing can be left to the private realm of unprogressive, self-interested citizens making their own choices, especially not those in business seeking profit.

Bernie is right about Joe Biden hes a model progressive. When asked what hell do in various situations, Bidens answer is typically some version of: Ill do whatever the experts say.

As progressives see it, even elected members of the government should be controlled by unelected experts. This, of course, raises a valid question: Why then, do we need elected members of government at all? Perhaps unelected bureaucrats are the progressive version of the philosopher-kings Plato wished for?

As progressive government becomes involved in everything, everything becomes politicized. In modern progressive America, as virtually every subject now involves some degree of government regulation, funding, or oversight, its become nearly impossible to have a discussion that doesnt become political.

Its also nearly impossible for citizens to form friendships with those who hold different political opinions. Questioning progressive government programs often gets one instantly accused of being hateful, stupid, or both.Yet the hallmark of progressive programs, now spanning more than a century, is repeated failure, often on grand scales.

During the Great Depression, for example, while promising to provide jobs and resources to those in need, progressive central planners regulated entire industries, dictating wages, prices, and production schedules. Progressives politicians confiscated enormous amounts of private capital, paid farmers not to farm, slaughtered millions of livestock, dumped millions of gallons of milk into rivers, and burned thousands of acres of crops, while hungry, struggling Americans went without food, saw their taxes increase, and remained unemployed.

A generation later, in 1964, progressives declared a War on Poverty. Since then, progressives have spent more than $22 trillion, far more than all U.S. military wars from the American Revolution to today, combined. More than half a century later, after creating hundreds of government programs and hiring millions of bureaucrats, progressive programs have failed to reduce significantly U.S. poverty rates.

In recent decades, progressive politicians have thrown mountains of other peoples money at education, while student achievement measures have stagnatedor even declinedwhile many public schools have become little more than institutions of progressive indoctrination that line the pockets of union bosses.

Today, we live in the most progressive era of American history, with a government that regulates and controls more areas of our lives than ever before. Never in American history has it been more difficult and expensive for ordinary citizens to start a business, own a home, or provide for a family.

As progressivism spreads across the United States, we see increased rates of child abuse, spousal abuse, partner abuse of all kinds, fatherlessness, substance abuse, neglect, depression, random mass murders, teenage suicides, and other pathologies fueled by idleness, dependency, and lack of responsibility. Coincidence? Unlikely.

And what do progressives offer as solutions? More of the same failed regulations, subsidies, central planning. More progressivism just the opposite of what we need.

To be progressive today is to feel morally superior because the progressive politicians, programs, and policies one supports are marketed as helping others. Yet slapping charitable-sounding labels on wasteful, counterproductive, unconstitutional, and often corrupt government programs doesnt help the people who need it most.

So, who does benefit from progressivism? Unelected government bureaucrats, elected politicians who dish out progressive favors in exchange for expanding power, and politically connected corporate cronies who use progressive regulations, subsidies, and special perks to crush their politically unconnected competitors.

After 150 years of American experiments in progressive central planning, the verdict is in: Its bad. No more. Its time progressivism becomes the term of condemnation it so richly deserves to be. To call oneself progressive is no reason to be smug. And he who would be the most progressive president since FDR is precisely the one who never should be president.

Go here to read the rest:
Calling Joe Biden 'Progressive' Is The Same As Calling Him A Failure - The Federalist